Comments on: Superdelegate Issue Produces Threats of Quitting Democratic Party

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:01:54 +0000

"Conceived In Agony"

Once Upon A Time,

After the wackiness of 1968 (liberalism was radicalizing by then, while the party establishment wanted things a wee bit more sedate, don't disturb the smoothly sailing Big Government boat), the Dems got McGovern in 1972 -- radical excess, and in 1976, got Carter, who was thrashed when liberalism was rejected by the US public in 1980. After those disasters, and because of those disasters, and with the intention of thereafter preventing more such disasters, the superdelegates were conceived. ("Conceived In Agony" -- the agony of defeat by one's own excesses and sillinesses) The idea was to give the party establishment and elites some control over the selection of future Presidential candidates to prevent similar disasters in the future.

And the Democratic Party machine expected things to go smoothly happily ever after.

The End

How funny now, that they are expected to favor Clinton, the most repellent and polarizing candidate of either party since the start of this primary process -- almost a blend of McGovern and Carter (with a Nixonian personality and performance).

Here's some background for those who are interested.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/berman

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the...

Meanwhile, trouble is brewing in Denver.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8190382

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/8/124759/1599

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/123147/7112

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/6/124633/7784

Dems and libs get to have most if not all of the fun this year.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:28:27 +0000

I hope someone can speak to this history of primaries, caucuses, and superdelegates, because I cannot. As for the current moment, I see no good purpose in them.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:19:23 +0000

What about the underlying reason for the superdelegates, though? There was a belief that they would help make things more democratic. Do we think that it just hasn't worked that way or that the risk and reality that it might not always is worth dumping the entire system? I mean, that might be true – but what do others think? There was a reason why the superdelegates were created – is the reason gone? was it a fake reason to begin with? what?

By: DLS

DLS — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:07:47 +0000

It's a shame with the super-delegates, which are elitist party-machine pals of Clinton this year and who in principle detract from the quality of the Dem Party primaries, which are superior to the GOP's, because they award delegates (the normal delegates) on proportional representation rather than winner-take-all, which may appeal to smaller states for clout but which is imprecise as well as "unfair."

While most people envision abolition of the Electoral College in favor of direct election someday of the President and Vice President (or just having the VP be an appointed position, with NO SENATE CONSENT [DEM PARTY CIRCUS] REQUIRED), other Electoral College reforms are possible. Can anyone envision super-electors, though?

As to Clinton, she's predictably continuing to be slimy and trying to cheat, with her standard Dem appeal to emotion (stage 1, often all that's needed with Dem voters) to forestall the "need" to cheat in a nastier way (even misusing the courts to force the inclusion of Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention).

(Clinton on Michigan and Florida, the super-delegates [who should vote for her], and other topics)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/...

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:04:06 +0000

What happens if Hillary wins 1623 delegates compared to Obama's 1630 delegates, which roughly corresponds to the small difference between them today? “Are you telling me if 410 superdelegates went for her and 386 for him under those circumstances, that would somehow be a moral breach? Give me a break,” Galston says.

No, but it will be fun to watch. I am going to make sure I have some popcorn on hand.

By: biwah

biwah — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:36:29 +0000

The other reason for sounding the alarm early is that the superdelegate issue is of a piece with the Michigan/Florida issue. There is a disturbing appearance of complacency by the DNC – are they going to step in and create a compromise/fix to these problems or are they going to sit on their hands and hope one candidate opens up a wide enough gap that they won't have to?

The DNC needs to get proactive and blunt the force of both sides' mounting unease, which could turn into a battle royale —> mass defection (for real, not just threatened).

By: PaulSilver

PaulSilver — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:16:41 +0000

Jillmz,
Paul, what do you have in mind when you suggest this: “But as more of the members become out-spoken moderates the rules can be changed to reflect an increasingly fair selection process”? I like that concept, I think – but what would it look like – what are you thinking?

I was thinking about reducing or eliminating super-delegates or even delegates all together to allow direct popular vote of candidates. At risk is the perception that individual voters don't matter and that back room deals determine the direction of the Party. If party members feel disenfranchised then it would undermine efforts to get out the vote in the general election.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:51:42 +0000

I do think it's important to, as others have said, articulate the principle that superdelegates should vote either with the national vote or at least with their state. Even if such an idea is accepted, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that the candidates might compete in “winning the vote” depending on if you use the delegate count, the popular vote, or the number of states won. For instance, I imagine that California has a large number of superdelegates. Those delegates might argue they are throwing their votes behind the winner of their state, while another group of superdelegates vote for the national winner.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:46:53 +0000

Biwah – you make good points. I don't doubt Brazille but Bowers – he's prone to dramatics this way – I do not trust him as much for the purity of how he feels but rather that he's moved to grandstand. Not that he doesn't believe what he's saying 100%, but Brazille has more heft behind her to indicate why this is so critical to her. Just my sense.

By: biwah

biwah — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:07:01 +0000

Is it a threat or a promise? There seems to be a difference between the two, here.

I think Brazile and Bowers are right in recognizing that the issue needs to be raised, pre-emptively. This is a tough issue, but at the end of the day for superdelegates to countervene the regular delegate count is undemocratic, elitist and politically suicidal.

You can quibble with the way they've laid down the gauntlet, but I give it the benefit of the doubt, as both Brazile's and Bowers' allegiances seem to be with the party rather than either remaining candidate. I think it may be a little early to issue this kind of missive - any superdelegates that are uncommitted as yet are probably waiting out the progression of the primaries.

But does anyone think there aren't quiet but ferocious efforts by both candidates to sway superdelegates? Now is as good a time as any to lay down a principle whereby the supers will, as a group, respect the allocation of the regular delegates, however close it may be.

Finally, there are echoes of all the conservatives in the blogosphere who vowed in the last six months that they would never vote for McCain. They may end up equivocating, saying that it was a tactical statement back then, and now, as a matter of tactics, they will line up behind McCain.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:19:12 +0000

Jim – I think that's fair, what you say about sending a message. I guess, if there were a way to do it without such drama and rather with more direct impact that we could see…but maybe I'm being unrealistic?

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:52:40 +0000

I think it's a message to the superdelegates. Hopefully it will make them realize what an absolute disaster it would be for the party and its chances in the general election should they “override” the results of the caucuses and primaries. The level of disillusionment that would result should Obama win the delegate count based on those but not be the nominee because of the superdelegates could easily cost the Democrats the Presidency since the run appears that it would then be Clinton versus McCain and McCain is a candidate that too many people in the middle feel comfortable voting for. What superdelegates voting for Clinton in that case would probably be forgetting is that the outpouring of first time caucusers and primary voters who came out to support Obama could easily just sit at home come November if they feel that they were cheated by a political power structure that they have no respect for.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:41:07 +0000

Jammer – yes – that's pretty much how I feel. I grant the people who are upset that it is an aggravating reality – but there has to be a better way. It astonished me how often people will go back to this divisive-style of combat over something that is important to them, when they can see the ruins all over the place of other times when such approaches have been taken. Talk about not learning from the past.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:39:43 +0000

Thanks, Rudy! No – I don't use AdBlocker or NoScript. My tech knowledge is very ad hoc, supplemented by my teenage whiz kid when I'm really down and out.

By: Jillmz

Jillmz — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:38:34 +0000

Paul, what do you have in mind when you suggest this: “But as more of the members become out-spoken moderates the rules can be changed to reflect an increasingly fair selection process”? I like that concept, I think – but what would it look like – what are you thinking?

By: Jammer

Jammer — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:33:09 +0000

This is just unacceptable talk from people who are apparently prepared to abandon progressive policies, and enable the Republicans to pick the next Supreme Court justices. You are no friend to progressive policies or your country if you are prepared to enable the other side out of a snit. This is not a zero sum game. If you stand aside, the other side triumphs. This is all so predictable and stupid.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:51 +0000

On the “geeky” issue' it's not Firefox but the poor code used by the site administrator at OL. Are you using add-ons like AdBlocker or NoScript?

By: PaulSilver

PaulSilver — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:17:37 +0000

I have to keep reminding myself that the the Parties are not the Government and are not legally obligated to the same standards of fair representation. But as more of the members become out-spoken moderates the rules can be changed to reflect an increasingly fair selection process.